This appeal emanates from the decision dated 7-6-1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court NO. ' 1, Lahore, whereby, the grievance petition .Of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a coin/currency note examiner Grade-II in the State. Bank of Pakistan: The charge-sheet given to him reads as under :-- "A check of the cancelled Rs. 100 notes that were lying in the vault on 6-2-1976 pending verification has revealed that the 12 packets of Rs. 100 cancelled notes particulars of which are given -at serial Nos. 1 to 12 of the enclosed statement which were handled by Ch. Muhammad Akhtar; Coin/Note Examiner Grade-II (under suspension) as counter on the dates mentioned under column 2 of the said statement show that -
(i) each of the packets contains two pieces of cancelled Rs. 100 notes, stitched in between the remaining notes which two notes ;
(a) were defaced on the date shown in column 8 of the above state--ment as evidenced by the particulars and placement of the counter's and encounter---s seals affixed thereon ;
(b) were accounted for in the cancelled note account on the date indicated in column 9 of the statement ; and
(c) had been verified by the cancelled notes verification branch on the date shown in column 10 of the statement, on which date the same are supposed to have been destroyed (by burning) as per provisions of item 1 (a) of para. 257 of the Issue Department Manual ;
(ii) one of the two notes referred to above was originally the top note of a full packet while the other note was the bottom note of the packet; (i.e) the said two notes are supposed to have been destroyed as stated in item (c) above ;
(iv) the holes punched in some--of the notes contained in each of the packets shown in the aforesaid statement are out of alignment with the holes punched in the remaining not contained in the packet. As it is, holes are punched in note packets mechanically by means of a note punching machine which punched through the entire packet simultaneously. Therefore, unless a packet had been handled in a manner contrary to the prescribed procedure (of para. 94 of the Issue Department Manual), there is no reason why the holes punched in some notes contained therein should be out of alignment with the holes punched in the remaining note ; and
(v) the Rs. 100, cancelled notes defaced on the dates shown in column 8 of the statement referred to above were verified in the cancelled notes verification branch on the date mentioned under column 10 of the said statement. The statement also gives under column 2 thereof, the dates on which the 12 packets under reference were handled in their existing form in one and the same note examination section, viz. Railway Cash Office, by the Ch. Muhammad Akhtar. Another common feature in the case of each of these packets is that the same were handled in their existing form in the Railway Cash Office after the date on which the respective packets, of which the two notes bearing the seals men--tioned in item (i) above formed part, was verified in the cancelled not verification branch.
The preceding position leads to the conclusion that the aforesaid 12 packets were : (a) abstracted from the cancelled notes verification branch on various dates shown in column 10 of the statement referred to above ; and (b) re-made in fresh packets and then planted in the Railway Cash Office on the dates shown in column 2 of the above statement in place of an equivalent number of other packets of Rs. 100 notes which' were required to be defaced and cancelled but which were instead abstracted from the Railway Cash Office by planting the aforesaid packets in place thereof.
The Bank was thereby defrauded to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000. The foregoing position, therefore, indicates that it was Ch. Muhammad Akhtar who : (i) handled in the Railway Cash Office the 12 packets that had been abstracted from the cancelled notes verification branch ; and (ii) abstracted an equivalent number of packets (which were required to be defaced and cancelled but which were instead abstracted by him) from the note examination section on the dates mentioned in column 2 of the statement referred to above ; and thereby committed acts of grave misconduct detri--mental to the interest of the bank."
3. In order to understand the case it is necessary to examine the. Facts., of the case. The currency notes that are-not desired to be continued in circulation are detained when They come to the State Bank of Pakistan. There are various branches where the currency notes go. In the present case we are concerned with the Railway Cash Office. Procedure is given in para. 94 of the Issue Department Manual It is as under :- '
The currency notes are made into packets of 100 pieces and each packet is stitched up with a label in form E-34, which is filled in and initialed by the Counter. Every currency note contained in the packet is stamped with the seal of the counter according to para. 86. Thereafter, the packets are by a single mechanical process defaced by being punched in both the half portions. After the packets have undergone the above--mentioned process, they are passed on to the recounter for recounting.' The appellant was the counter so he had to deal with the currency notes as detailed above before delivering them to the recounter Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, who, according to the appellant, is the real culprit. The front and the bottom currency notes of the packets are signed and sealed by the counter. In each packet the front and bottom defaced currency notes of some previous packets which had been passed and .Were presumed to have been burnt were found stitched in between each packet. E-34 stitched upon each of the 12 packets was found to be filled in and initiated by Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, according to the enquiry report.
4. The case of the appellant is that the procedure given in para. 94 of Issue Department Manual was not. Being followed to reduce the time to be spent in the process, with the result that be after counting the packets stitched upon the top blank forms E-34 and delivered packets to the recounter for recounting, filling in E-34 and defacement by punching. He admitted that E-34 bore his stamp but added that the seal used to be left by him on the table unattended -so Maqbool Ahmad could have very easily affixed it on E.-34 form. He examined about five witnesses in defence who supported him by saying that the procedure in para. 94 was being deviated. The prosecution witness however, did not admit and said that the procedure given in para 94 was never deviated.
5. The enquiry officer in the first instance -exonerated the appellant and found that Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, recounter, was the culprit holding that the procedure given in para. 94 was being deviated but the Manager remanded the enquiry and the enquiry officer's second report is that the appellant is the culprit. He has at the same time opined that there is strong circumstantial evidence-against Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, He has also remarked that the procedure given in para. 94 was not being followed. If it is said that para. 94 was being deviated, then the only work which the appellant was doing -#vas to make the currency notes into packets, count them, stitch on the top blank form E-34 and sign and seal the front and the bottom currency notes of each packet leaving the whole of the remaining work to be done by the recounter. I think the defence witnesses have correctly stated that para. 94 was being deviated. The reason is that according to the finding of the enquiry officer, E-34 were in the handwriting and initials of Mr. Maqbool Ahmad. The signatures of Mr. Maqbool are partly cut in the punches, meaning that the packets were punched after E-34 forms were signed by Mr. Maqbool Ahmad. If according to para. 94, the appellant had punched the packets, then the signatures of the recounter (Mr. Maqbool Ahmad) could not have come under the punch holes, The other thing is that some packets which are not in dispute were recovered from the house of Mr. Maqbool Ahmad. The only thing which goes against the appellant is that E-34 slips bear his seal. Possibility cannot be excluded that Mr. Maqbool -Ahmad or some one else got access to stamp seals of the appellant.
6. Real difficulty in the way of the appellant . Is that the labour Courts have no jurisdiction. Such an objection, no doubt, was not taken in the written statement, before the lower Court, and in the appeal, but this being a legal question and touching the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be overlooked. Manufacturing, discompose, replacing and destroying of Government currency notes is a regal function of the Government alone and no other person is entitled to do. In place of discarded and destroyed currency notes, other notes are issued. If any person can have authority to issue and destroy currency notes, the currency of the country would fail. The duty of the appellant is to work in the process of counting defacing and- destroying the currency notes. He is performing regal functions of the State and thus is employed in the administration of State.
According to section 1 (3) (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the said Ordinance is not applicable to the appellant. This is true that the appellant had no concern with the actual destruction of the notes by burning, but that is the last step in destroying them. The initial process is nevertheless important and of great responsibility. If the initial process is not done, the stage of actual destruction cannot reach. I, there-- fore, hold that the grievance petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed although on different grounds.
7. As upshot of the observations made above; I dismiss the appeal.